plc_ide_open_existing

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses UAC requirements, process-start expectations, vendor permission checks, completion-event and solution-identity matching, and timeout/retry behavior. It also explicitly rules out closing, importing, overwriting, deleting, saving, compiling, and PLC operation, which meaningfully qualifies the non-destructive annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose comes first, followed by prerequisites, operational boundaries, and timeout behavior. The sentences are dense but each carries relevant information, with no obvious filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex IDE-open operation, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, boundaries, and timeout behavior well, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Its main completeness gap is the lack of clear parameter mapping for the three required inputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all three required parameters. It refers to a "GUID returned by list_projects" and "the same process start," which adds some meaning for solution_id and process_started_utc, but it never names or clearly maps process_id, and it does not explain formats or how the three inputs relate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Open one persisted Sysmac project by the GUID returned by list_projects." It distinguishes the operation via the persisted-project/GUID scope and explicitly lists several operations it does not perform.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear usage context by stating the project GUID comes from list_projects and by listing prerequisites such as normal UAC, the same process start, and an idle empty start page. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling open tools such as plc_ide_open_copy or plc_open_project, so it stops short of full when-versus-alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.